BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric
Overview Business law impacts our everyday lives, both personally and professionally. Businesses enter contracts, manufacture goods, sell services and products, and
engage in employment and labor practices—activities that must all adhere to certain laws and regulations. Recognizing and evaluating legal issues is a
fundamental skill that will help you navigate commercial relationships and avoid potential problems in the business world.
The final assessment for this course will require you to analyze three case studies and produce a short report for each. You will apply your legal knowledge and
your understanding of the types of business organizations. The project is divided into three milestones, which will be submitted at various points throughout the
course to scaffold learning and ensure quality final submissions. These milestones will be submitted in Modules Three, Five, and Six. The final project will be
submitted in Module Seven.
This assessment addresses the following course outcomes:
Apply appropriate elements of the U.S. legal system and the U.S. Constitution to business scenarios for impacting decisions in authentic situations
Apply concepts of ethics, morality, and civil and criminal law to business scenarios for informed corporate decision making
Analyze the basic elements of a contract and a quasi-contract for their application to commercial and real estate scenarios
Differentiate between the various types of business organizations for informing rights and responsibilities
Prompt Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been tasked with reviewing three current cases. You will review the case studies and compose a
short report for each, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. In each of the three reports, you will focus on
areas of law covered in this course. Case Study One focuses on the legal system, criminal law, and ethics. Case Study Two concentrates on contracts and landlord-
tenant law. Case Study Three involves environmental law and business organizations.
Case Study One
Chris, Matt, and Ian, who live in California, have decided to start a business selling an aftershave lotion called Funny Face over the internet. They contract with
Novelty Now Inc., a company based in Florida, to manufacture and distribute the product. Chris frequently meets with a representative from Novelty Now to
design the product and to plan marketing and distribution strategies. In fact, to increase the profit margin, Chris directs Novelty Now to substitute PYR (a low-
cost chemical emulsifier) for the compound in Novelty Now’s original formula. PYR is not FDA approved. Funny Face is marketed nationally on the radio and in
newspapers, as well as on the web and Facebook. Donald Margolin, a successful CEO and public speaker, buys one bottle of Funny Face over the internet. After
he uses it once, his face turns a permanent shade of blue. Donald Margolin and his company, Donald Margolin Empire Inc., file suit in the state of New York
against Novelty Now Inc. and Chris, Matt, and Ian, alleging negligence and seeking medical costs and compensation for the damage to his face and business
reputation. It is discovered that PYR caused Margolin’s skin discoloration. The website for Funny Face states that anyone buying their product cannot take Chris,
Matt, and Ian to court. Novelty Now’s contract with the three men states that all disputes must be brought in the state of Florida.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
A. Apply the rules of jurisdiction to the facts of this case and determine what jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuit against Funny Face
and Novelty Now, respectively. Consider federal court, state court, and long arm principles in your analysis.
B. Assume all parties agree to pursue alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for
this case. Be sure to define the characteristics of each in your answer.
C. Applying what you have learned about ADR, which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why?
D. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss whether or not corporations and/or corporate officers may be held liable for criminal acts.
E. Identify, per the classification of crimes in the text, any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Now.
F. Assume the use of the emulsifier PYR, at the direction of Chris, is a criminal offense. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss the potential criminal
liability of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now. Include support for your conclusion.
G. Apply at least three guidelines of ethical decision-making to evaluate ethical issues within the case study.
Case Study Two
Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building where he has been working on his new invention, a machine that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off
potential intruders. A national chain store that sells safety products wants to sell Sam’s product exclusively. Although Sam and the chain store never signed a
contract, Sam verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units.
Sam comes home from work one day and finds two letters in his mailbox. One is an eviction notice from his landlord, Quinn, telling him he has to be out of the
apartment in 30 days because his barking device has been bothering the other tenants. It also states that Sam was not allowed to conduct a business from his
apartment. Sam is angry because he specifically told Quinn that he was working on a new invention, and Quinn had wished him luck. The second letter is from
the chain store, demanding that Sam deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
A. Analyze the elements of this case to determine whether a valid contract exists between Sam and the chain store. Support your response by identifying
the elements of a valid contract in your analysis.
B. Assume there is not a valid contract between Sam and the chain store. Analyze the elements of a quasi-contract and a promissory estoppel to determine
whether the chain store would prevail on a claim of either. Why or why not? Include support for your analysis.
C. Identify the rights and obligations of both the landlord and tenant under a standard residential lease agreement.
D. Based upon those rights and obligations, does Sam’s landlord have grounds to evict? Why or why not?
E. Further, what defenses might Sam raise to an eviction action? Support your response.
Case Study Three
Jeb and Josh are lifelong friends. Jeb is a wealthy wind-power tycoon, and Josh is an active outdoor enthusiast. They have decided to open a sporting goods
store, Arcadia Sports, using Jeb’s considerable financial resources and Josh’s extensive knowledge of all things outdoors. In addition to selling sporting goods, the
store will provide whitewater rafting, rock-climbing, and camping excursions. Jeb will not participate in the day-to-day operations of the store or in the
excursions. Both Jeb and Josh have agreed to split the profits down the middle. On the first whitewater rafting excursion, a customer named Jane falls off the
raft and suffers a severe concussion and permanent damage to her spine. Meanwhile, Jeb’s wind farms are shut down by government regulators, and he goes
bankrupt, leaving extensive personal creditors looking to collect.
Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed:
A. Identify the main types of business entities and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each.
B. Recommend a specific business entity for Arcadia Sports and include your reasoning.
C. Based on the characteristics of each type of business entity, determine the type under which Jeb and Josh would be personally liable to Jane for
damages.
D. Based on each type of business entity, analyze the ability of Jeb’s personal creditors to seize the assets and/or profits of Arcadia Sports.
Milestones Milestone One: Case Study One
In Module Three, you will submit the first milestone. For this milestone, you will review Case Study One and compose a short report, applying your legal
knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. Case Study One focuses on the legal system, criminal law, and ethics. This milestone will be
graded with the Milestone One Rubric.
Milestone Two: Case Study Two
In Module Five, you will submit the second milestone. For this milestone, you will review Case Study Two and compose a short report, applying your legal
knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. Case Study Two concentrates on contracts and landlord-tenant law. This milestone will be
graded with the Milestone Two Rubric.
Milestone Three: Case Study Three Discussion
In Module Six, you will submit the third milestone. This milestone is a discussion regarding business entities and their advantages and disadvantages. Your active
participation in this discussion topic is essential to improving your understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the various business entities. Actively
engaging with your peers will help you complete the remaining critical elements in the third case study for your final submission. This milestone will be graded
with the Milestone Three Rubric.
Final Project Submission: Case Study Analyses
In Module Seven, you will submit your final project. It should be a complete, polished artifact containing all of the critical elements of the final product. It should
reflect the incorporation of feedback gained throughout the course. This submission will be graded with the Final Project Rubric.
Final Project Rubric Guidelines for Submission: Each of the three reports should be three to six pages in length. The documents should use double spacing, 12-point Times New
Roman font, and one-inch margins. Citations must be given in APA format.
Critical Elements Exemplary (100%) Proficient (85%) Needs Improvement (55%) Not Evident (0%) Value
Case Study One:
Rules of Jurisdiction
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
cites scholarly research to
support claims
Correctly applies the rules of
jurisdiction to the facts of this
case and determines what
jurisdiction(s) would be
appropriate for Margolin’s
lawsuit against Funny Face and
Novelty Now
Applies the rules of jurisdiction
and determines what
jurisdiction(s) would be
appropriate for Margolin’s
lawsuit against Funny Face and
Novelty Now, but determination
of jurisdiction is incorrect for
this case
Does not apply the rules of
jurisdiction or determine what
jurisdiction(s) would be
appropriate for Margolin’s
lawsuit
6
Case Study One:
Alternative Dispute
Resolution
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
offers insight, based on scholarly
research, as to why the chosen
types of ADR would be
appropriate choices in this
situation
Analyzes the advantages and
disadvantages of two types of
ADR and defines the
characteristics of each
Analyzes the advantages and
disadvantages of two types of
ADR, but analysis is cursory or
does not define the
characteristics of each
Does not analyze the advantages
and disadvantages of two types
of ADR
6
Case Study One:
ADR Preference
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
offers concrete examples to
substantiate and
comprehensively describe why
the chosen types of ADR would
be preferred by the respective
parties
Applies knowledge of ADR and
discusses which types of ADR
each party (Funny Face, Novelty
Now, and Margolin) might prefer
and logically defends choices
Applies knowledge of ADR and
discusses which types of ADR
each party might prefer, but
discussion is cursory and/or
does not discuss reasons for
preferences, or defense is
illogical
Does not apply knowledge of
ADR or discuss which types of
ADR each party might prefer
6
Case Study One:
Criminal Acts
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
cites specific, applicable rules of
law
Applies concepts of criminal law
and discusses whether or not
corporations and/or corporate
officers may be held liable for
criminal acts
Applies concepts of criminal law
and discusses whether or not
corporations and/or corporate
officers may be held liable for
criminal acts, but discussion is
cursory or lacks detail
Does not apply concepts of
criminal law or discuss whether
or not corporations and/or
corporate officers may be held
liable for criminal acts
6
Case Study One:
Potential Criminal
Acts
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
ideas are well supported with
annotations from the text
Correctly identifies, per the
classification of crimes in the
text, any potential criminal acts
by Funny Face and/or Novelty
Now
Identifies any potential criminal
acts by Funny Face and/or
Novelty Now, but criminal acts
identified are incorrect for this
case
Does not identify any potential
criminal acts by Funny Face
and/or Novelty Now
6
Case Study One:
Potential Criminal
Liability
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
cites scholarly research to
support analysis
Applies concepts of criminal law
and discusses the potential
criminal liability of Funny Face,
Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty
Now and includes support for
the conclusion
Applies concepts of criminal law
and discusses the potential
criminal liability of Funny Face,
Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty
Now but does not include
support for the conclusion, or
support is weak
Does not apply concepts of
criminal law or discuss the
potential criminal liability of
Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and
Novelty Now
6
Case Study One:
Ethical Decision-
Making
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
offers insight into the
relationship between ethics and
law
Accurately applies at least three
guidelines of ethical decision-
making to evaluate ethical issues
within the context of the case
study
Applies at least three guidelines
of ethical decision-making to
evaluate ethical issues within
the context of the case study,
but application of guidelines has
gaps in accuracy or logic
Does not apply at least three
guidelines of ethical decision-
making to evaluate ethical issues
within the context of the case
study
6
Case Study Two:
Valid Contract
Meets “Proficient” criteria, and
analysis is well qualified with
concrete examples and is well
supported and plausible
Analyzes the elements of the
case to determine whether a
valid contract exists between
Sam and the chain store and
supports response by identifying
the elements of a valid contract
Analyzes the elements of the
case to determine whether a
valid contract exists between
Sam and the chain store, but
analysis is incorrect or does not
support response by identifying
the elements of a valid contract
Does not analyze the elements
of the case to determine
whether a valid contract exists
between Sam and the chain
store
6
Case Study Two:
Quasi-Contract
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
cites scholarly research to
substantiate claims
Analyzes the elements of a
quasi-contract and a promissory
estoppel to determine whether
the chain store would prevail on
a claim of either, logically
explains why or why not, and
includes support for analysis
Analyzes the elements of a
quasi-contract and a promissory
estoppel to determine whether
the chain store would prevail on
a claim of either and explains
why or why not, but the
explanation is cursory and/or
illogical or does not include
support for analysis
Does not analyze the elements
of a quasi-contract and a
promissory estoppel to
determine whether the chain
store would prevail on a claim of
either
6
Case Study Two:
Rights and
Obligations
Meets “Proficient” criteria and is
accurate in effectively discussing
nuanced rights and obligations
in the relationship between the
landlord and tenant
Correctly determines the rights
and obligations of both the
landlord and tenant under a
standard residential lease
agreement
Determines the rights and
obligations of the landlord or
the tenant under a standard
residential lease agreement (but
not both) or is incorrect in which
rights and obligations apply
Does not determine the rights
and obligations of both the
landlord and tenant under a
standard residential lease
agreement
6
Case Study Two:
Grounds to Evict
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
provides a thorough, step-by-
step analysis with specific
supporting evidence applied to
each element of the relevant
legal test
Correctly determines whether
Sam’s landlord has grounds to
evict based upon the previously
stated rights and obligations
Determines whether Sam’s
landlord has grounds to evict
but does not base
determination on the previously
stated rights and obligations or
is incorrect in determination
Does not determine whether
Sam’s landlord has grounds to
evict
6
Case Study Two:
Defenses
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
cites scholarly research to
substantiate determination
Accurately determines what
defenses Sam might raise to an
eviction action and effectively
supports the response
Determines what defenses Sam
might raise to an eviction action
but is not accurate in
determination or support is
ineffective
Does not determine what
defenses Sam might raise to an
eviction action
6
Case Study Three:
Business Entities
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
offers insight into the nuances of
each in relation to one another
Correctly identifies the main
types of business entities and
discusses the advantages and
disadvantages of each
Identifies the main types of
business entities, but
identification is not correct, or
does not discuss the advantages
and disadvantages of each, or
discusses the advantages or
disadvantages of each (but not
both)
Does not identify the main types
of business entities
6
Case Study Three:
Specific Business
Entity
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
includes specific, well-supported
reasoning for business entity
choice
Recommends a specific business
entity for Arcadia Sports and
includes a logical reasoning
Recommends a specific business
entity for Arcadia Sports, but
reasoning is illogical or missing
Does not recommend a specific
business entity for Arcadia
Sports
6
Case Study Three:
Damages
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
offers nuanced insight as to why
they are liable under that
specific business entity
Accurately determines the type
of business entity under which
Jeb and Josh would be
personally liable to Jane for
damages
Determines the type of business
entity under which Jeb and Josh
would be personally liable to
Jane for damages, but is not
accurate in determination
Does not determine the type of
business entity under which Jeb
and Josh would be personally
liable to Jane for damages
6
Case Study Three:
Seize the Assets
Meets “Proficient” criteria and
cites scholarly research to
support analysis
Correctly analyzes the ability of
Jeb’s personal creditors to seize
the assets and/or profits of
Arcadia Sports
Analyzes the ability of Jeb’s
personal creditors to seize the
assets and/or profits of Arcadia
Sports, but analysis is incorrect
or lacks detail
Does not analyze the ability of
Jeb’s personal creditors to seize
the assets and/or profits of
Arcadia Sports
6
Articulation of
Response
Submission is free of errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, and
organization and is presented in
a professional and easy to read
format
Submission has no major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
Submission has major errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that negatively impact
readability and articulation of
main ideas
Submission has critical errors
related to citations, grammar,
spelling, syntax, or organization
that prevent understanding of
ideas
4
Total 100%
